• athos77
      link
      fedilink
      591 year ago

      Didn’t they also remove some of the things that indicated a post was “sponsored” or whatever?

        • @echolomaniac@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          181 year ago

          Something being illegal under EU law is used as an ace in the hole for some reason. These multi-billion companies will pay the fines in the EU and continue operating. On the off chance they roll back these changes in the EU, they’ll keep using them in the US, China, Russia, wherever.

          Only thing that’ll stop this is global laws against it, which is impossible because of bribery. Oh sorry, lobbying.

          • @Womble@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            121 year ago

            Eh, not really. Some of the EU laws have serious teeth, there’s good reason why pretty much all big tech companies ensure they are GDPR compliant. It doesn’t matter how big you are being fined up to 4% of annual turnover is no joke to anyone.

      • @Mic_Check_One_Two@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        20
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yes, though it was unclear if that was a feature or a bug. Since their dev team was decimated, the site has been struggling to even do basic maintenance and security updates. It’s entirely possible that was a bug, especially since it only appeared to be happening with certain users and servers.

    • @NevermindNoMind@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      391 year ago

      The author of the article determined that these ads are coming from the trashy ad networks that brought you such classic clickbait ads as “Doctors hate this one weird trick” and “[Current President] has slashed auto insurance rates in [your state], here’s how” that you see at the bottom of low quality news articles. So, it’s not just that X has spam ads, but they aren’t even directly selling them, which the article summarizes is a sign of desperation to get any ads, no matter how shit in quality, no matter how low paying to X they are, on the platform. At least the low tier news sites have the decency to identify them as ads and label the ad networks that is putting them up.

    • @SkyNTP@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -63
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I despise Twitter’s leadership as much as the rest, but increasing ads is not at all a “cause a problem” situation Twitter doesn’t owe you ad-free usage of their platform. So no, not a scam/scummy behaviour, just bad value.

      And you don’t owe Twitter your patronage. So just move on from it.

      • morgan423
        link
        fedilink
        English
        43
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You do realize that the actual issue is that this is kind of thing is going to be normalized, so that it can spread like a plague across the corporate-touched internet, objectively making the entire thing as a whole objectively worse… right?

        Because it sure doesn’t seem like it with that reply.

        • Bappity
          link
          fedilink
          English
          18
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Reddit is already following in footsteps of twitter. unsurprising but worrying because they could influence other companies to do the same

      • Hegar
        link
        fedilink
        261 year ago

        increasing ads is not at all a “cause a problem” situation

        Tech executives would disagree with you - creating a problem that users have to buy their way out of is one of the most popular business models going at the moment. The mobile gaming industry, for example, is basically $140B worth of intentionally created frustration.

        There’s been so much written about this obviously scummy practice. It’s everywhere.

        It’s either naive or disingenuous to suggest they’re not obviously trying to annoy cash out of people.

      • blargerer
        link
        fedilink
        91 year ago

        They are allowed to try and monetize in various ways, but there are still ethical standards that are just consistently not followed in online advertising (like doing due-diligence to make sure the company advertising isn’t some sort of transparent scam). But this change seems to be stepping away from one of the standards that is actually a legal mandate, properly labeling adverts and sponsored content as such.

      • Neuromancer
        link
        fedilink
        English
        71 year ago

        Even if X wasn’t trying to make a profit. They still have cost to cover.

        I don’t use it. Never have. Never saw any value in it.

        I still have yet to understand Elon’s strategy with it but it’s his billions to waste.

        • Zellith
          link
          fedilink
          5
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          It’s actually not his billions. He borrowed billions to finance the purchase. There are talks of the banks stepping in to protect their investment.